Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Beckett: I am tempted to make a joke about Focus leaflets, but I will refrain from doing so as the hon. Gentleman is in agreement with me. I can certainly say that we have not the smallest intention of removing security of tenure from existing tenants. I understand entirely his point about those who wish, for a variety of reasons, to remain council tenants, and to retain the mobility that comes with that. One thing is slightly worrying, and makes it important for us to look into and pursue these issues: it is counter-productive to say, on the one hand, that if people are beginning to earn a little more, perhaps they should think about moving out of council housing, whether they wish to or not, and to say on the other hand that we need mixed communities. I understand that right across the House there is acceptance that mixed communities are highly desirable. Let us see how we can maintain them.

Margaret Beckett: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, despite his remarks, 1 million more people are in home ownership than was the case when this Government came to power? He talks about "inexcusable failure", but it seems an utterly inexcusable failure that when this Government came to power, we found a backlog of £19 billion of needed repairs and maintenance, particularly in the social housing sector. Investment was made in putting roofs on while the sun was shining—they were left off by the Conservative party—and that has perhaps meant that fewer resources went into new build than might otherwise have done. That was a scandalous failure of the previous Government, but one that our party has rectified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (programming bills),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Energy Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 22nd January 2008 (Energy Bill (Programme))—
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments 
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion relating to Energy Bill [Ways and Means] (No. 2).
	 Subsequent stages 
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any further question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

Mike O'Brien: This group of amendments deals with a number of issues, including carbon capture and storage, the renewables obligation and offshore electricity transmission. Let me deal with the amendments in turn; I suspect that they will not prove controversial, but it is right to outline their main provisions.
	Amendment No. 1 refers to the carbon dioxide storage provisions and relates to clause 20, which deals with the terms and conditions of carbon dioxide storage licences. In Committee, the other place agreed an amendment to require the licensing authority to consult the licence holder before making modifications to an existing licence. Even though this would be standard practice, an express duty would provide greater certainty to commercial operators. We agreed with the arguments presented and I am therefore bringing forward the amendment from the other place.
	Amendments Nos. 2 to 11 are proposed to the carbon dioxide storage provisions in the Bill, specifically clause 34. The clause enables the functions of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers to be transferred, by order, to another authority, or more than one authority, that is best placed to exercise such functions. It will be possible to use the power to transfer functions to the most appropriate and best equipped authority to regulate carbon dioxide storage in due course. For example, if a marine management organisation is established, it might prove an appropriate authority for regulating carbon dioxide storage. The provision will give the House an opportunity to decide later if that is the way in which it wishes to deal with the matter.
	The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended that only public rather than private bodies should be tasked with carrying out the functions on behalf of the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers. That recommendation is consistent with our intentions in the clause. Any potential transfer was always intended to be in connection with public bodies and we therefore brought forward these amendments in the other place.
	Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 and 79 to 83 are minor drafting amendments aimed at clarifying the definitions of Scottish and Welsh waters that are currently contained in one chapter of this Bill and which have been inserted in legislation that this Bill amends.
	Amendment No. 68 relates to importation and storage of gas and carbon dioxide storage. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that regulations made under clauses 13 and 27 be subject to an affirmative procedure. Such regulations would specify the powers and duties of inspectors of offshore gas storage and unloading and carbon dioxide storage facilities, respectively. Amendment No. 68 was tabled in the other place to meet those recommendations. We accept the Committee's recommendation to subject the making of the regulations to an affirmative resolution procedure.
	The second set of amendments in the group relates to the renewables obligation under clause 37. It is our intention, supported by the renewables industry, to introduce a reformed renewables obligation as soon as possible after receiving Royal Assent for the Bill. In practice, that will mean from 1 April 2009, as the obligation runs out at the end of a financial year. However, the timetable for achieving that is very tight. The difficulty is that the operation of the renewables obligation in Scotland is already devolved. The amendment puts the transfer of the reformed functions to Scottish Ministers in the Bill rather than using the longer process of an order under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998 once Royal Assent has been received.

Mike O'Brien: In just a moment.
	Transferring functions in such a way is fully in line with the devolution settlement but ensures that we are on track to deliver on our zero band by April 2009. May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the issue has been debated and approved in Holyrood by means of a legislative consent motion.

John Gummer: I declare an interest, in that I chair a company that advises firms on the provision of renewables and sensibly managed, environmentally friendly products. That gives me the advantage of knowing a little about the issues.
	I thank the Minister for this group of amendments, and also for other developments that have occurred during the Bill's passage. I hope that the House recognises just how complex the issues will be, and how easy it is to distort the future simply by getting the legislative parameters very slightly wrong. The Minister has been extremely helpful, as was his predecessor, in ensuring that we have a fit-for-purpose Bill to deal with what are sometimes considered to be boring details. I thank the Minister particularly for the measures relating to offshore electricity. The issues that arose in my constituency, where one of the largest offshore wind farms in Britain happens to connect with the grid within a nuclear power station complex, showed me just how complicated such matters can be.
	I hope the Minister accepts that we shall probably have to return to these issues much sooner than we would normally wish to do so, simply because the technology and the circumstances are moving so fast. It is because he has been willing to change right up to the last minute that I permitted myself my intervention on his speech. It is a case of keeping up with rapid change at a time when, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), other countries too are moving very fast. We need to be fully competitive.
	I now find myself in the unusual position of being able to say thank you for a Bill that I think has been greatly improved by the amendments.

Mike O'Brien: May I briefly thank the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for their support on these measures, and join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the officials for the way in which they have dealt with matters. I know that my predecessor agrees with me in regarding the officials as exceptional in being able to grasp a very complex policy area and address it with skill and dedication, and in their devotion of so much time and effort. We greatly value that.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right that transmission access will be a major issue in the decades to come—and much sooner than that, probably. We will have repeatedly to return to this, because many in the industry are concerned about it. He is right that there is not an easy answer, but we need to ensure that we get it right, because others are competing with us and we must get the best possible access to transmission to the grid that we reasonably can.
	Let me say once more that I am grateful for the support on these amendments.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 41 agreed to.
	After Clause 40
	 Lords amendment: No. 42, to insert the following new clause— Feed-in tariffs: electricity.

Alan Simpson: The hon. Gentleman is right, and his comments allow me to come to the final part of my tributes to those who have brought us to our current position, by paying tribute to the new Secretary of State, because it is fair to say that the lead he has given is what has transformed the agenda. We are right to have tabled today's amendments, which require any feed-in tariff scheme to include a precise timetable for its introduction and to be precise about the technologies that will be incorporated and the different tariffs that will apply both to the technologies and the scale of the technologies.
	On a personal level, every time I had to bang on the Secretary of State's door about getting things right, I did not find the difficulties or hostility that we faced little more than a year ago. It is important that the House recognises the way in which the goalposts have shifted in the debate. It was not too long ago that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform issued an internal briefing paper whose whole approach was hostile to feed-in tariffs, dogmatically repeating a mantra that the renewables obligation delivered all the answers and that feed-in tariffs would be a distraction. The Secretary of State grabbed the process by the scruff of the neck and gave it a shake. He saw that there was nothing in that argument, and he came to the House to make a commitment to introduce a feed-in tariff regime in the UK; his role that should be recognised.
	I am sure that the Secretary of State will not parade any of the bruises or scars that he has acquired in introducing his proposals on the threshold for feed-in tariffs. It is fair to say that behind the scenes there was enormous hostile opposition to the shift from the previous position to where the Secretary of State—and, I hope, the whole House—intends to take us.

Charles Hendry: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. Clearly, if the people involved in the consultation are not reaching agreement, we could lock him in the room with them for the weekend. There is no doubt that that would move us forward to an early conclusion in these matters.
	We will watch the progress of the consultation very carefully. There should be no doubt in the Government's mind that, if they do not deliver the feed-in tariff by the last date for a general election in 2010, we will make it a key plank of our election policies. We will make clear our determination to make it a priority to move this matter forward with greater urgency and dedication. Nevertheless, we hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us about how the Government will deliver the feed-in tariff within the time scale that we seek.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South also mentioned Government amendment (g), which proposes a change in the threshold limit from 3 MW to 5 MW and which will be moved later by the Minister. Concerns have been expressed by some groups that raising the threshold of the feed-in tariff above a limit of 1 MW would start interfering with the renewables obligation. We tabled amendments precisely to allow for the variation of the feed-in tariff, according to technology and the size of development. Some older and more developed technologies do not require the boost that a feed-in tariff would give to newer small-scale renewables.
	The 5 MW limit is an upper limit only, and would not necessarily apply to all technologies at all sizes. We therefore understand why the Secretary of State has decided on that threshold. The idea behind it is to allow the inclusion of non-commercial scale projects, such as those that will be installed by homeowners, small businesses, local authorities, community groups, farmers and others. That would help out hospitals and schools that want to facilitate greater use of renewables and ensure low emissions as part of our 2020 targets. It would also help households to reduce their reliance on the grid, ameliorating levels of fuel poverty. However, we also understand why those in the wind sector were anxious about the threshold, as they are concerned not to have a system that jeopardises any investment plans. The key to resolving the problem is to have much greater clarity. We therefore urgently need the Government to indicate what upper limits for feed-in tariffs would apply to which technologies, so that investors in every sector can understand fully what is being proposed and how it will affect them.
	I am also keen to speak to the amendments in my name, and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and other hon. Members, through which we seek to get more detail about the exact definition of a feed-in tariff. They have been tabled because concern has been expressed about the nature of the feed-in tariffs that the Government propose to introduce. The Government were initially reluctant to introduce the feed-in tariff principle at all, so there are concerns that they might seek to wriggle out of the commitment that has been made while the Bill is passing through both Houses of Parliament.
	A letter from Friends of the Earth to Members of Parliament, signed by many people associated with such issues, says:
	"We are concerned that neither of the amendments that the Government has made to the Energy Bill include a timetable for their introduction, and that the feed-in tariff amendment does not contain basic provisions to guarantee the introduction of a genuine feed-in tariff."
	It goes on to quote Lord Hunt, who said:
	"our hope is that a feed-in tariff scheme will be operational in 2010. Clearly, I have to say that that is a hope, and I cannot give that as an absolute commitment, because a lot of work needs to be undertaken."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2008; Vol. 705, c. 234.]
	Those comments have caused some concern, because they may mean that the 2010 target could be allowed to slip; the Minister has already made it clear that that might happen.
	Those of us who have advocated a feed-in tariff for some time have always been clear that it must contain the basic elements of a feed-in tariff that are lacking from the Government amendment. There must be a definition that can apply only to a feed-in tariff. We are keen explicitly to exclude any option that would allow the payment to take any form other than that of a feed-in tariff. For the scheme to work effectively, the Government must fix the level of the tariff and guarantee the tariff level for a specified contract period. There would, of course, be different tariffs to reflect different technologies, and there would also be a need for the variations in the tariff to reflect the scale of the application involved.

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose amendment is a beacon of clarity compared with some of the other technical aspects of the Bill. We have considered very carefully the point that he makes, and our view is that it is better to set out clearly now what is meant by a feed-in tariff so that there is no need for a discussion later, in which people say, "We haven't got what we thought we were getting." In our discussions with the relevant non-governmental organisations, we have found that they are concerned, as are other external commentators, that, because of the lack of definition in the Bill, there is scope for a misunderstanding to arise later, and that is what we are very keen to avoid.
	In addition, amendment (d) would require the Secretary of State to make provision for how costs relating to connecting installations to the grid or to the distribution network will be dealt with. It would not pre-determine how the costs would be dealt with, but simply require a determination to be made. Our concern is that if the provisions are not made, suppliers might be able to make such charges as they wish to small generators to make their investments unattainable.
	I should also like to speak to amendment (f), standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). There are concerns about the very low combined heat and power—CHP—threshold of 50 kW, compared with the 3 MW limit set for supporting renewable energy, and the effect that it may have on people investing in CHP. Under the renewable obligation, only larger-scale investments have prospered, but CHP has been recognised as one of the most significant drivers in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Our cities are responsible for about 80 per cent. of greenhouse gas emissions, and their potential for installing CHP is enormous. To reach our targets on reducing carbon emissions, CHP must be encouraged. CHP can reduce the carbon emissions of a building by as much as 40 per cent., according to some external advisers.
	The Combined Heat and Power Association, in a briefing to Members ahead of the debate, said:
	"A 50 kW CHP plant would serve a development of between 50 and 100 dwellings."
	However, the association noted:
	"Raising the cap to 5 MW would encourage the deployment of CHP in community schemes of the order of 5,000 to 7,500 dwellings. It would increase the likelihood of developing local district heating schemes."
	We are keen to see such development and roll-out of combined heat and power. If the 50 kW support threshold for CHP is not increased to the same level as the threshold for renewable sources of energy, the result will be to tilt the economics against investment in more effective CHP schemes. William Orchard of Orchard Partners, an expert on these issues, has said that the
	"50kW limit will distort the market and discourage investment in larger 500kW CHP used to heat blocks of flats".
	Such projects should be at the heart of our thinking as we try to drive forward this complete change in our approach to energy, towards renewable energy and clean energy.
	Although we all accept that renewable sources are the ideal for CHP, a fossil fuel CHP project can also deliver savings. In a submission to us, Clarke Energy, which implements a lot of CHP schemes across the country, said that the limit
	"would imply that fossil-fuel CHP schemes above 50kW output are not to be encouraged and not beneficial".
	We all know that that is not the case and that we would be keen to see such schemes introduced as well.
	We want much greater use of district CHP schemes. However, under the Government's plans, such schemes would receive support only if they used the ROCs, with all the complexity and confusion that that would involve. We want, for example, to encourage district general hospitals to replace their old boilers with CHP systems. Their output would typically be about 1 MW, or slightly more; however, they could reduce the carbon emissions of a large district general hospital by as much as 2,000 tonnes per annum and save it as much as £350,000 in running costs. If the systems generated more power than was needed, they should be eligible for support from a feed-in tariff. To exclude them would seem perverse; they might not be using renewable fuels, but would still have taken a significant step in the right direction.
	The Minister has said that he is reluctant to accept the change. However, in the course of the Bill we have seen so many of our proposed changes accepted following protracted parliamentary scrutiny, and here we are proposing just a little further degree of detail. If we got that into the Bill, the people who have been delighted by the overall decision to include feed-in tariffs would be genuinely thrilled that what the tariffs are intended to do was tied down in detail.

Steve Webb: It would be remiss of me not to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) on all his achievements. We have all been harangued by him in the nicest possible way, and mysteriously come round to his way of thinking. I pay tribute to him, and to those who have briefed and lobbied us, including Friends of the Earth, which has been mentioned.
	We welcome their Lordships' addition of a feed-in tariff, but the Liberal Democrats have added our names to amendments that support more definition of deadlines and the financial subsidy mechanism. Perhaps we are still not quite there on urgency. The Minister will be familiar with the 100 months campaign, which was launched at the start of August. It talks about 100 months before reaching a tipping point for climate change. We are already three and a half months through that time. We need a new way of thinking about such matters, which does not involve a consultation, a discussion paper, a Green Paper, a review or a period of further reflection. We are past all that.
	Like the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), my worry about the Minister in another place, who said that he hoped that we could achieve the aim in 18 months, but perhaps we cannot, is that not acting quickly is not an option. It is far better to get something roughly right by, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, locking people in a room for a weekend, and then perhaps refining it, than to try to wait until it is perfect—it probably would not be perfect anyway.
	I am worried by the mentality that assumes that we have to work according to financial years. I do not know whether I am right, but I sense a presumption about 6 April. I hope that that is not the case. I do not know where 6 April comes from—perhaps pagan festivals and the spring equinox—but it should not govern when we have to act. Things are far more urgent. We should get on with it the very day, week or month that we determine how to act.
	I therefore support amendment (a), which would set a deadline of within 12 months of Royal Assent. We could fill any time available—we could spend six years thinking about this—but we urgently need to get on with it. I therefore urge the Minister to accept amendment (a). Even if he were not forced to do so, I am sure that he would want to pull out every stop to ensure that action was taken in 12 months.
	I welcome amendment (f), and if the Minister does not feel able to accept it, I hope that we can test the House's opinion on it. It deals with combined heat and power. One could be a purist and say that, because that is not a renewable, it should not be included. That would be an argument, albeit one that I do not accept. However, if we intend to include combined heat and power and recognise its contribution, the low threshold is odd. I know that the Minister will try to justify it shortly, but the contribution of combined heat and power, at least in the transitional phase when we try to move to very low carbon, if not zero carbon, is demonstrable. To constrain it so much, up-front, in primary legislation is odd. Tariffs can differ according to technology and at varying thresholds, so the potential to treat small micro-CHP differently from larger CHP already exists. Removing the constraint simply gives the Government more power and flexibility. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept amendment (f).
	A potential downside of the feed-in tariff has not been mentioned. We support and welcome the feed-in tariff, but I hope that the Minister will reflect on that possible downside. Who pays for it? If we are not careful, we know which small-scale community groups, hospitals and schools and householders will do small-scale generation. We know who will have a solar panel and—dare I say it?—a small-scale wind turbine on the roof. We know the social groups and the income bands that will do that and to whom the feed-in tariffs will be paid, if we are not careful. Everybody else will pay for it in their bills, and that will be bad news for fuel poverty.
	We have a combined Ministry dealing with climate change and energy. Part of the energy remit is obviously affordable energy. Clearly, there is a tension. However, given that we want feed-in tariffs, and that we want them to be generous enough to make things happen, does not that place a great onus on the Government to get serious about social tariffs and tackling fuel poverty by other means? If all we do is introduce a generous feed-in tariff that results in an increase in fuel bills across the board, we will worsen fuel poverty. None of us wants to do that. What will go hand in hand with feed-in tariffs to ensure that we do not make fuel poverty worse? I hope that part of the answer is insulation and so on, but that is happening anyway. We hope that other energy efficiency measures will be taken, and that companies will introduce social tariffs, but there is precious little evidence of that so far.

John Gummer: I hope that we are not in danger of sounding churlish to the Minister, as there is no doubt that we have moved a long way in a very short time. There is also no doubt that the new Ministry has got off to a very good start; right from the beginning, certain things were announced that we had all hoped for. The 80 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2050, and feed-in tariffs, were two things that gave all of us across the House a feeling that the new Ministry had lined up its ducks in the right order.
	Therefore, it is with a certain amount of reluctance that I say to the Minister that there is a third element to this that would make a big difference—what I might describe as "urgency". If we are being fair about the excellence aspects, we must also be fair about the drawbacks. We have treated many of these matters with a lack of urgency. The Government have not been as quick or fleet-footed as they ought to have been. Most of us would accept that.
	If that is true, and if urgency is very important, it is reasonable to support the amendments, to ensure that people get on with it. That is not because I believe there is any possibility of the Government going back on their feed-in tariffs decision. It would be foolish for anyone to suggest that someone will turn up and say that that is not what the Government promised. I would love to find out who it was in the Treasury who hated feed-in tariffs for so many years. There must have been a person whose life's determination was to block feed-in tariffs. However much the argument went on, somebody there deep in a cavern was determined to make sure that it would happen over his dead body. Now we will find the body, but it would be interesting to know to whom it belonged.
	I do not think that the Government will get this wrong, but we need to involve people outside in a real crusade to find answers to the issues of climate change. The reason why I have always believed in feed-in tariffs, and why we made them a central part of our energy proposals in the "Quality of Life" report, was simply that we dare not leave to the experts, the big companies or the ministries the job of finding the way to solve the challenge of climate change. We must get every kind of person with any kind of contribution to make that contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) said, we are an innovative country and we can find ways that were hitherto unthought of.
	Feed-in tariffs draw those ideas out and encourage all sorts of different people to find structures that make it possible for us to apply new ways of generation that would otherwise not occur. I hope that the Government will help us by ensuring that we know that this will happen quickly, and that people know how it will affect them. Will the Minister answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, in terms of understanding whether people who opt in to one system can opt out, if the other is more suitable?
	Perhaps he will take these questions as compliments to the Government. We are all pleased that today we can see this new beginning; we just want it quickly. Christmas cannot come quickly enough, because we do not have time, and urgency must be injected not only into the Government, but into the world outside. If the Minister can give us that assurance, we will have a real reason to thank the new Ministry, beyond all the plaudits that it has received already.

Mike O'Brien: I welcome the debate and its positive tone, not least in terms of the praise for the Government and, quite rightly, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I join with other Members in paying tribute to the work of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) and others who, on an all-party basis, have pressed for the changes.
	The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) was right that this measure will help hospitals and schools but 5 MW of electricity can heat an awful lot of homes, indeed thousands of them, so that means we can ensure that we have electricity, and heat in due course, for large communities.
	May I also reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are talking not about super-ROCs, but about real feed-in tariffs? That is certainly the obligation to which the Government have signed up, but there has been much lengthy debate about the effective deployment of renewables since the Bill was introduced in the House in January. I am pleased that hon. Members both sides of the House share our objective of ensuring that we are best placed and have the best possible financial framework to enable us to meet our 2020 renewables target.
	The changes that we will make to the renewables obligation under the Bill will build on the success of the renewables obligation so far and lead to the deployment of more diverse mixes of larger-scale renewable electricity projects as we move towards 2020. That is important: although there is a lot of praise for the introduction of feed-in tariffs, the renewables obligation will continue to be a primary means by which we ensure that the 2020 target is hit.
	We have listened to the arguments that the RO is not suitable for domestic and small-scale electricity generation projects, at least partly because of its relative complexity. Although some small-scale projects have operated via the RO, the results are patchy, so we have decided to introduce feed-in tariffs for small-scale low-carbon electricity generation. An upper cap for those feed-in tariffs has been defined in the Bill to give clarity and certainty to investors in large-scale projects under the RO. Our original amendment in the other place set an upper limit of 3 MW—we wanted the upper cap to be high enough to give us sufficient flexibility to ensure that we can direct support to small-scale projects of the right capacity.
	It is important that there is no confusion about the fact that the 5 MW limit relates to capacity, not generation. The capacity restriction is not dependent on the number of kilowatt-hours that an installation will generate over a year. Different technologies will generate different kilowatt-hours of electricity, and they will be paid over that period. This is a capacity argument in terms of determining whether or not they qualify, rather than anything else. It is important that that point is made clear during the debate, so that no one expects all those technologies to generate at that massive 5 MW level or whatever, but we also want the cap to be low enough to avoid delaying perfectly viable renewable projects under the renewables obligation. Since the debate in the other place, we have decided that the 5 MW level will be better than the 3 MW one because it will enable projects that fall into the 3 to 5 MW category to benefit from feed-in tariffs. Those involved in such projects should analyse the evidence to find out which tariff is beneficial.
	We will, of course, consult on the tariffs next year. As part of that process, we will undertake further analysis to determine the limit at which FITs would be set below the 5 MW cap. It is important to note that we expect that the renewables obligation will deliver the vast majority of renewable electricity up to 2020. We intend to make further announcements soon on how we plan to modify the renewables obligation to ensure that it delivers a much higher share of renewable electricity by 2020 than previously planned.
	On a one-off opt-out to the RO or to FITs, we intend to make further announcements on our approach to transitional projects that could be captured in the new scheme. Our aim in this announcement, however, is to minimise the risk of projects being tempted to wait and see before committing to either the RO or FITs. It is absolutely crucial that we ensure that investment confidence is sustained in the RO for larger-scale electricity projects and that no project is disrupted while we develop a feed-in tariff policy to support small-scale low-carbon generation. Indeed, 2020 is only 11 years away; delay now is undesirable.
	Amendment (a) seeks to require the Secretary of State to modify licences within a period of 12 months after Royal Assent to the Bill. I understand the wish of Members in all parts of the House to make rapid progress on these enabling provisions and to ensure that we deliver an effective scheme as quickly as possible. The need for urgency is felt no more keenly than in Government, especially in view of the EU renewables target that we need to hit by 2020. However, we also need to ensure that we get this right.
	For example, before we can modify the relevant licences to implement the policy, we need to develop models enabling us to introduce a scheme that can effectively encourage deployment on the scale that we want. We need to consult on our analysis on the proposed tariff levels of payments for the different technologies. We need to work with the electricity suppliers and Ofgem, which will deliver the tariffs to generators to ensure that the licence modifications that we propose will function as we intend, alongside the existing licence conditions that regulate this complex market.
	Members should not assume that this process will be simple. It will be enormously complex. However, the benefits will be considerable and important, so we shall have to go through the process and we shall have to get it right. It will involve spending a vast amount of consumers' money, for, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), the consumer will ultimately pay for much of it. We do not want to waste any of that money. We do not want people to be pushed further into fuel poverty because we are spending more money than is necessary on a particular project.
	The hon. Member for Northavon said that we had wasted enough time, and that we needed to get on with all this. I agree about the urgency, but moving too fast and getting it wrong will carry a price, and that price will be paid by consumers. We have an obligation to ensure that we get the process right, and that means getting the consultation right. While we all agree on the need for urgency, I trust that we also all agree on the need to ensure that we do not land consumers with a big and unnecessary bill.
	Last but not least, we need to allow time for Parliament to scrutinise the draft proposals before modifications can be made. Parliament takes its time with things: it has to go through the processes. Let us ensure that we can carry out our consultation on the feed-in tariff system and the proposed tariff levels next summer. Following that consultation and through further work with Ofgem, electricity industry players and other interested parties, we shall be in a position to finalise the implementation aspects of the system, such as arrangements for payment processes.
	Taking all that into account, we are committed to introducing a feed-in tariff scheme for small-scale electricity in 2010. Our ideal target is for the scheme to go live in April 2010, so that it can be aligned with the financial year of the renewables obligation. As I do not know the date of the next general election just yet, I cannot assure my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell that "power to the people" will be at the top of the manifesto; but I can say that, if this Parliament extends to a full term, it might.
	We should not underestimate the challenges inherent in delivering a fully operational scheme in a little over 16 months, but, despite its complexity, it is important for us to set a target and try to meet it. We are committed to introducing the feed-in tariff as soon as possible. However, choosing an arbitrary date at this stage will fetter our ability to deliver a fully functional and effective scheme in 2010, and may put consumers at risk of having to pay more than they need.

Charles Hendry: Between the first and second Divisions, the gap between the Government and us narrowed by three votes, so if we had gone on for another couple of hours we would have got it down to zero. However, we decided not to inflict that on the House, and I am glad that we can now move on to the next group of amendments.
	The Government will be aware that we have supported the approach taken in the Bill towards encouraging nuclear new-build. We think that they have got the framework broadly right. We have to examine the changes proposed in the Bill in conjunction with some of the other initiatives that the Government are taking to encourage people to consider nuclear new-build.
	Whatever one's approach to nuclear new-build, we should recognise the work that is being done by the office for nuclear development, which is an outstanding example of proactive Government in seeing where there are problems and how to get round them to ensure that people looking to invest in this country feel that the Government are trying to remove the obstacles. That is a good example for other areas of energy policy. I single out for praise the work of Dr. Tim Stone in trying to identify where the obstacles may be, looking specifically at the nuclear installations inspectorate and seeing what needs to be done to provide it with additional resources and more skilled personnel so that it can move forward more quickly with the work of assessing the role that different reactor types might be able to play.
	We welcome the changes that the Minister has announced today. We strongly support the obligation to publish the decommissioning guidance and the requirement on the Secretary of State to take account of that guidance. We also welcome the clarification of the definition of what would constitute information that is false or misleading. In fact, we proposed that in Committee, so it would be rather churlish not to support it now.
	We welcome the clarification of reporting requirements. There had been a strong sense in and outside the House that the Government were using the changes to remove the requirement to report regularly and in a way that people could understand. The Minister has tackled that most helpfully.
	There was particular concern about the vagueness of the time scales that would have been permitted and could have resulted in reports that did not reflect the same period of time. For example, one report could have covered 15 months, with the next covering nine months, and we could not easily have gained a clear picture of what was going on. We could not compare like with like. We therefore welcome the Government's change of heart and the decision to state specifically the definition of the reporting period, which will relate largely to the calendar year.
	We also welcome the requirement to publish the sustainable energy report before the end of October in the year following the year to which it relates. Perhaps that approach could be taken to other Government reports, for example, on the number of people in fuel poverty. The figures always appear to lag approximately three years behind the actual figures. They probably do not lag when the numbers are going down, but, when they increase, there seems to be more of a lag. Nevertheless, the requirement is a welcome step forward and we are pleased to support it.
	One of the most significant changes of heart that the Government had during the Bill's passage was about smart metering. We are pleased that they will mandate the installation of smart meters. It will make a huge contribution to resolving fuel poverty, removing for ever the need for estimated bills. It will enable people to choose the cheapest tariff much more constructively and give the customer much more information. It will also help meet the environmental goals, which we share, encouraging people to use energy outside peak times. It will also be a key element in encouraging microgeneration by measuring two-way flows of electricity: that which is brought into a house and that which is exported from it. It will be essential if feed-in tariffs are to work.
	It is crucial that smart meters will apply to gas, electricity and, potentially, water. That is an important step in fulfilling a range of different goals. It is a step towards what would be called a smart grid—a much more intelligent grid—and being able to control the way in which people's electricity is used and manage demand much more effectively.
	We are glad that the Government have overcome their reservations and accepted in principle the case for smart meters, which energy companies, consumer groups, environmental groups and Members of Parliament of all parties advocated. We are also glad that they have been persuaded of the need to accept a time scale for introducing smart meters.
	The 10-year roll-out is not significantly different from the current rate. Typically, in a year, 8 per cent. of meters are replaced and, just on that natural rate of churn, one would expect the whole country to be done in 12 or 13 years. Ten years is, therefore, not especially ambitious, but we recognise that it has much support in industry and with other groups outside.
	We could shorten the two-year consultation period. Let us revert to the concept of a locked room, especially with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) there to badger people to reach a conclusion. That would have been effective. We could achieve agreement in a much shorter time, but we are not prepared to make a big issue out of it because we are genuinely pleased with the Government's approach and the fact that they have taken on board many representations that we and many others have made.
	Lord Hunt said:
	"We anticipate a period of around two years to resolve the issues and to design the full detail of a domestic roll-out. Our aim is then to ensure that the subsequent roll-out happens over a period of 10 years. This would see delivery of smart meters by the end of 2020 to align with our renewables targets."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 2008; Vol. 704, c. 1515-16.]
	Will the Minister give us assurances or tell us the legal status of Lord Hunt's comments? Will he clarify whether the Government would be inclined to move more quickly on the installation of smart meters in new-build properties? A case could clearly be made for saying that it is easier to install them when a property is being built and that that should be done before replacing the stock. Can he give us assurances about the way in which the Government wish the roll-out programme to proceed?
	Having said all that, the amendments are sensible and we are happy to support them.

Mike O'Brien: That depends how we define radical sea changes. I am sure that Ofgem is aware of the changes. We meet Ofgem officials frequently to discuss such issues, and they are aware. Indeed, more importantly, the suppliers and generators of energy will need to be aware that the requirements are part of Ofgem's remit. Therefore, when it comes to making decisions, they will have to have regard to the requirements. They are important changes, but whether they amount to a sea change or an element of radicalism remains to be seen. We have made it clear to Ofgem that we expect it to have full and proper regard to the changes when it makes decisions .

Alan Simpson: Lords amendment No. 65 is decidedly good news and amendment (a) simply seeks to put a time frame around its implementation. The reason I say that it is decidedly good news is that there has been a very important shift in the thinking about how we deal with the heat part of the energy agenda. For a long time whenever Members approached Ministers on the issue, we were given the rather intriguing assurance that the Department had a "team on heat." This may have raised some eye-watering prospects as to what life was like in the then Department for Trade and Industry or Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, but it was not clear whether this team on heat was delivering anything.
	One of the problems was that the efforts at that time were centred on trying to find an equivalent of the renewables obligation for heat. The good news about the amendment is that it represents an abandonment of that search in favour of a feed-in tariff arrangements; a production tariff, the like of which we can see in operation in other parts of Europe. I welcome that, and the important thing for us to address now is the time scale and the significance of the measure in connecting with other parts of the renewables agenda that we have already debated this afternoon.
	I would like to give just a couple of examples of why it is important that we get the time frame right. Perhaps I should say in parentheses that I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that there should be no threshold in relation to heat generation. That is a definite good move that allows us to bridge the gap that currently exists between ourselves and, for example, Germany in relation to the generation of heat from renewable sources. In the UK at the moment there are 17 biodigesters producing gas and heat. In Germany, there are 5,500. The reason for that is the German system already has a production tariff, which allows the system to work in ways that direct heat to off-grid communities and/or to the fuel poor, while allowing it to connect to the use of biogas for electricity. That is why it is important that the Government synchronise the timetables for the introduction of this renewables-intensive programme, and that we set in the cross-party amendments the same sort of time frame that we wanted to see in place for the introduction of feed-in tariffs for electricity. Let me give some examples as to how that makes sense.
	First, if a hospital, as in my own city, is considering investing in the construction of a biodigester that would take hospital waste, including food waste, and some of the biodigestible waste from other parts of the city, it will want to use that waste to create biogas, to increase its quality to biomethane and to use it to provide direct heating. In parts of the summer, when it might not require heating to the same extent, the obvious answer is to turn the excess heat into electricity. So there is an overlapping purpose: connection to the renewable energy agenda makes sense for the renewable heat agenda.
	The same applies to off-grid communities and the fuel poor. I brought representatives of one of the German companies across to explain that to officials in my own city. Some of the officials in Nottingham struggled to grasp the scale of what was on offer. The Germans were able to say that, in respect of fuel poor, they could offer fixed gas prices for the entire contract period for the disposal of the biodigestible waste. In an era of ever-spiralling gas prices in the international gas market, everyone who can offer, in real terms, fixed gas prices by taking what is currently a problem—biodigestible waste—and turning it into a fixed-price resource is almost offering a winning lottery ticket. Against the criteria of how we address the needs of the fuel poor and those of off-grid communities, such schemes in many respects offer a potential that is at least as large as the capacity to generate renewable electricity and place it in the context of renewable gas and heat. The point of amendment (a) is simply to say that, if we seek to remove confusion, it would be phenomenally helpful if the schemes for both could be synchronised.
	I do not want to be dogmatic given that, if I were to turn the argument around slightly, it would be disastrous to hold back one scheme just because the final details were not in place for the second. However, it is still legitimate for us to say that, as we think about the time scales for electricity, it makes sense for us to try to synchronise them with the time scales for the introduction of renewable heat incentives. In many cases, the same companies, communities and localities will be at the heart of that investment planning. So if we are to offer a genuinely joined-up approach to our renewables strategy, it would be helpful to have the same sort of time scale according to which we seek to deliver them.
	I do not want to go into the arguments that we have rehearsed in relation to the details of the scheme and the tariffs that would apply, but the principle of synchronising timetables is one that, I hope, we can commit ourselves to, and I hope that the Minister, even if he cannot accept amendment (a), can give assurances that that is the Government's intention as they seek to motor on both of those important fronts.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (programming of bills),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Climate Change Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9th June 2008 (Climate Change Bill [Lords] (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Message 
	1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	2. Proceedings on that Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages 
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. Proceedings on any further Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

Steve Webb: Amendments Nos. 17A and 17B represent a small step in the right direction on the issue of domestic effort, but remain vague. Their lordships thought that at least 70 per cent. of the savings needed to be made domestically. Their Bill came to this House, and the Government got rid of that provision in Committee. The Bill went back to the other place, and they said, "All right, we won't do that, but there will at least be some sort of cap." I suppose that having some sort of cap is better than having none, but there is no indication in the amendments of what cap we are talking about—whether it is 50, 60 or 70 per cent.
	We await the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, and as that is due in a few weeks I recognise that there is some advantage in flexibility. I want to stress, however, that this is not purely a technocratic issue—I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is in his place—where we just buy from the cheapest place, and assume that if we buy abroad or at home it does not much matter because a ton of carbon is a ton of carbon. National leadership is fundamentally important, and I am worried that his Department has started to say something profoundly concerning. When questions are asked about what Governments might do that would lead to emissions, such as airport expansion, coal-fired power plants or whatever, the answer from Ministers is that it does not matter because there is an overall cap. Heathrow expansion does not matter because aviation is in the emissions trading scheme—

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is sitting behind me, but I guess he cannot read my handwriting from there. My second point was precisely that—I had written, "overseas credits bring 'wrong' technology". From a developmental point of view, there is a place for assisting developing countries to deal with carbon emissions in order to prevent them from going down a path of dirty technology. It is far better, however, to save carbon emissions at home. We can then put money into technology that will work in the developed world where the big emissions problem is. There is a strong case not to say that a ton of carbon saved is a ton of carbon saved and it does not matter where. If we save it at home we are spending money on technology that works in the rich world, which can be exported. That is good for the green economy, and helps the world to tackle its carbon emissions.

Ann Keen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan) on securing the debate on the national health service for secondary breast cancer patients. I am aware of her interest in breast cancer, and I realise that today's debate has been prompted by the recent work of Breast Cancer Care's secondary breast cancer taskforce on metastatic—advanced—breast cancer.
	I was able to attend a meeting with Breast Cancer Care in May, and, in the past couple of weeks, a meeting of the all-party group on breast cancer. We welcome the work by Breast Cancer Care and the secondary breast cancer taskforce to raise the profile of secondary breast cancer.
	We are aware that patients with secondary breast cancer have different needs from those with primary breast cancer. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who spoke in her usual positive and passionate way, made important points about cultural differences and the work that remains to be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised the important issue of the hospice movement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned a certain stigma that persists among some older women in the community. I can relate to all those points because, as a nurse for many years, I experienced them with patients and their families. Many of us now represent constituencies that include groups of people who need the confidence and reassurance that the NHS can give women.
	The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's guidance, "Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer", recommends how breast cancer services should be organised, and covers recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. It recommends that a patient with breast cancer,
	"should receive information relevant to her case about the disease, diagnostic procedures, treatment options and effectiveness".
	Of course, that includes information on the probability of recurrence.
	Let me explain how the information is given. NICE is currently developing clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of secondary breast cancer, which we expect to publish in February 2009. At the all-party group meeting, I heard the very different experiences of women in respect of the way in which information is presented to them, and especially the burden that giving information only to the patient, who has to go away and explain it time and again to friends and family, creates. It cannot be acceptable for that burden to fall on the patient alone, especially of an unexpected secondary diagnosis. I emphasise that NICE is currently developing clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of secondary breast cancer.
	Several key priorities that the taskforce identified in its excellent work, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax highlighted today, were raised by stakeholders during the development of our cancer reform strategy, which we published in December 2007. Actions to tackle those issues, which affect all cancer patients, were included in the strategy.
	The first priority that the taskforce identified is the need for a key worker for all secondary breast cancer patients. I cannot stress the importance of that enough. In its November report, the taskforce further recommends,
	"that within every patient's clinical team, there is a Clinical Nurse Specialist who has the skill and knowledge to manage metastatic breast cancer. This person will act as the patient's key worker."
	I would say, key worker, advocate, friend, counsellor and nurse.
	As my hon. Friend knows, work force planning is a local matter and is the responsibility of NHS organisations, with the support of their strategic health authority.However, the debate enables me to say that a strong message is sent to strategic health authorities, local health communities and primary care trusts at every opportunity to emphasise that we recognise the importance of employing nurse specialists, with that specific skill. We acknowledge the critical role that clinical nurse specialists play in cancer care. That has been confirmed by the importance of the role as part of the multi-disciplinary team, as set out in the NICE series of "improving outcomes" guidance. During the development of the strategy, patients repeatedly told us of the important role that clinical nurse specialists can play in improving the experience of people living with and surviving cancer. At our recent party conference, I was asked to speak at a meeting entitled "Long-term conditions", but some years ago we would not have expected that to include cancer. We are so pleased that people are living much longer lives with cancer and secondary cancer. Therefore, they deserve to have—and must have—the support that the taskforce has set out.
	The strategy asked commissioners to give particular attention to that role for clinical nurse specialists. The strategy also recommends that good commissioners will use the peer review data to benchmark their local clinical nurse specialist provision against that of similar PCTs and take action where the clinical nurse specialist work force are found to be insufficient. There will therefore be much more transparency and other PCTs will be able to see how best practice is being portrayed.
	As part of the implementation of the strategy, a small working group has been set up by the national cancer action team to look into the role and contribution of nurses across cancer services. The group will look at the outcomes required across tumour type pathways and the competences required to deliver them. The national cancer action team is now funding a survey of clinical nurse specialists.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax rightly raised the issue of collecting data. Collecting data on the number of those diagnosed and living with secondary breast cancer is the second priority. The national cancer intelligence network, which was launched in June, will build, maintain and quality-assure a new repository of national cancer data. That will help patients to make choices about their treatment, enable hospital teams to identify areas of weakness and encourage commissioners to seek improvements in quality where necessary. We are working hard to help the NCIN collect those data in a timely manner, and its first annual report is scheduled for publication in 2009.
	The need for high quality patient information is another priority. Ensuring that all patients have access to high quality information and support is a key part of the pledge that we made to cancer patients in the strategy. The strategy sets out a number of initiatives to improve patient support services for those living with and, of course, beyond cancer. Those initiatives include: ensuring that patients receive high quality personalised information throughout their—as it is described in the strategy—cancer journey on issues such as cancer treatment, local and national support services, and, importantly, financial benefits; working with cancer professionals in the NHS to improve their communication skills when dealing with patients; the establishment of a new national cancer survivorship initiative; and monitoring progress on improving patient experience through annual surveys, which will include the views of secondary breast cancer patients.
	I have listened to many of the women involved and, along with my hon. Friend, pay tribute to their courage and commitment. Even when they have not felt well enough to attend, they have bravely done so. We have made good progress on the national initiatives to improve information delivery and communication skills training since the publication of the strategy. That is so important. We all think that we are getting it right, but then we listen to the patient experience and discover that some things are still lacking. Therefore, the commitment to professional development and training is of the utmost importance.
	The national cancer action team is working closely with cancer networks and charities to roll out national information pathways, and this is being linked to pilot work on information prescriptions. I take note of what my hon. Friends have said this evening—particularly about the culture and how the older woman is affected—and can now see that it is fed into the information pathway. National patient information pathways for bowel, lung, prostate and breast cancers were launched in July. They are nationally agreed sources of information that will be available for clinicians and clinical nurse specialists to give to patients at each stage of their cancer journey, including information for women with secondary breast cancer.
	Improved access to psychological services for all secondary breast cancer patients and their families is the fourth priority. Once again, we recognise that that can be as important as any other aspect of treatment, and we have stated that commissioners will need to ensure that adequate provision is available so that all patients, and their families, friends and carers, can access the appropriate psychological support that they need. When a person is informed of a second diagnosis, they require different support. All the clinical people involved in the care of patients with a secondary diagnosis are aware that, sometimes, that support is not adequate. Everyone is trying to ensure that the psychological support is available, not only for the patient, but for family members.
	Improved management of secondary breast cancer patient care is the fifth priority. I can confirm that the management of active cancer has been identified as a workstream to be taken forward as part of the new national cancer survivor initiative.
	Cancer services remain a high priority for this Government, and my hon. Friends have praised the work that our clinicians and NHS staff have done. We have seen changes and significant improvements in cancer services in the past 10 years, especially since the publication of the NHS cancer plan in 2000. Our achievements include: extending breast screening to women aged up to 70; the roll-out of the bowel cancer screening programme; a reduction in waiting times for patients with suspected cancer; more cancer specialists—that is absolutely critical to the strategy, and there are more than 1,655 extra consultants in this area since 1997; and cancer mortality in under-75s fell by more than 18 per cent. between 1996 and 2006. We are on course to meet our target of a reduction of at least 20 per cent. in cancer deaths in under-75s by 2010. The public health and awareness agenda that all of us must take account of will make a significant difference to that figure.
	That does not mean that we are complacent. We face significant challenges when dealing with cancer services for people with secondary cancer. We have opportunities to deliver further improvements through the strategy, which was developed with the help of more than 1,000 groups and individuals. It is very much an inclusive and involved strategy, which I believe was welcomed by all the cancer charities and patients who are not associated with them. We value the work of Breast Cancer Care and all other cancer charities, and look forward to continuing to work with them through the various strategy initiatives to improve the experience of all cancer patients, including, of course, those with secondary breast cancer. We owe that to those women and their families, and the NHS wants to deliver it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Nine o'clock.